| # | Author | Message |
31
| DAR
Mon 4/28/2008 8:40a | Then why don't we look into hydrogen instead. |
32
| RoadTrip
Mon 4/28/2008 8:53a | <<Then why don't we look into hydrogen instead.>>
Well, hydrogen isn't the be-all, end-all from the Green perspective. What it the by product of a hydrogen engine?
Yup. Water vapor.
What is currently the most prevalent greenhouse gas?
Water vapor.
There is a down side to EVERY energy source.
|
33
| SuperDry
Mon 4/28/2008 11:39a | <<< Then why don't we look into hydrogen instead. >>>
Hydrogen really isn't an energy source - it's a means of storing and delivering energy. It's not a whole lot different than a battery in an electric car in that regard: although the car itself doesn't pollute, there needs to be something elsewhere that generates (or harvests) the hydrogen, and that takes energy from another source. |
34
| plpeters70
Mon 4/28/2008 11:46a | "Water Vapor is 95% of all the greenhouse gasses. There is zero proof CO2 causes climate change. In fact, the proof is the opposite."
You're ignoring the point. Humans are not increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere directly - we are increasing the amount of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases. As these gases cause the earth to warm, more water vapor will stay in the atmosphere - thus causing even further warming.
And I have yet to see ANY proof that shows that CO2 does not cause warming. |
35
| Dabob2
Mon 4/28/2008 12:23p | plpeters70, you're arguing with Beau, someone with lots of definitive statements, but no facts. |
36
| plpeters70
Mon 4/28/2008 1:05p | "This is 100% flat out false. Where you got this, they are misleading you. Big time."
Please provide a link to information showing this to be false. Your quotes don't provide any real information. |
37
| plpeters70
Mon 4/28/2008 1:07p | "Are you sure you want to give up your car, your air conditioner"
You do realize that all of those things cause pollution of all sorts - not just CO2. So YES, I do think we need to change our way of life. It's just not sustainable with the current technologies in use, is polluting the planet, and will do so even more so as Third World countries begin to use the same amount of resources as the First World.
Finding a more sustainable lifestyle will benefit all humans and animals on the planet. |
38
| Dabob2
Mon 4/28/2008 1:08p | <Please provide a link to information showing this to be false. Your quotes don't provide any real information.>
As usual. |
39
| Mrs ElderP
Mon 4/28/2008 2:21p | The talk about global warming is somewhat besides the point. The point is that although we in the US can weather food prices going up 15%-20% a huge segment of the world's population can not. Farmers do deserve to make a living, so do the people who pick the grapes and the tomatoes and strawberries, ect. (Though right now the biggest problems are with the staple crops that are generally harvested by machine.) What's the solution? I don't know. I do know that less meat consumption is part of it. I also know that local farmers who aren't priced out of their local markets are part of it too. (That could have wider, positive consequeces for economic stability the world over, as an added bonus.) I also think that "world peace", the kind that allows 3rd world farmers to farm and not see their crops destoryed by roving militias is a part of it too. I seriously doubt the viablity of using food as fuel. I'm open for other suggestions. I think, that at best, any long term solution for fair energy use and equal distribution of food is going to have lots of parts and we are going to lurch towards it little by little. |
40
| EighthDwarf
Mon 4/28/2008 6:14p | <<No it is not (show me ANYTHING that says it is). I will agree that it is pretty much a wash... that it doesn't help the environment but doesn't harm it any more than oil production does.>>
Um, read this.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17500316/
|
